Last week we learned that singer Taylor Swift purchased the domain names TaylorSwift.porn and TaylorSwift.adult in a move designed to prevent others from buying them and misusing her name. She is not alone, already Microsoft bought Office.adult, and Harvard University purchased Harvard.porn.

The domain name arms race is on.

If you have never heard of the .porn or .adult domain names, do not worry, they are new. In 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a program allowing the expansion of the generic top level domain names (gTLDs) from the well-known few (.com, .net, .biz, .org) to pretty much anything imaginable that can be expressed in standard ASCII characters and non-Latin scripts. The stated goal is to “promote competition in the domain name market” and to enhance consumer choice. ICANN strongly denies that this is a blatant money-making scheme on their part, designed to benefit the domain name industry. Regardless of the reason behind the move, it is clear that we are witnessing a domain name land-grab of unprecedented proportions since the dot com bubble.

The procedure for applying for new gTLDs is open to anyone (I briefly toyed with the idea of applying for .geek as an investment), but in reality the prices make it prohibitively expensive for most people, with no guaranteed return on investment with the exception of some popular domains. To even participate in the application process one needs $185,000 USD (including a $5k deposit), which starts an evaluation period that may lead to more charges. The applicants must demonstrate that they have the requisite technical, operational, and financial capability to operate a registry, and that the string is not similar to other existing domains or applications. Then there is a period for opposition to the domain, and finally the application is forwarded to a final stage. If there are two applicants for the same string, then there is a bidding process, culminating in the award of the string to the highest bidder.

Over 500 new strings have been approved already, including .accountant, .lawyer, .football, and .yoga. The sums involved in the auctions process are astounding, for example the .app domain recently was awarded for $25 million USD. But at the moment there are two real winners in the domain name wars: ICM Registrars owns the .xxx, .adult, .porn and .sex domains; and Vox Populi Registry, which owns the .sucks domain.

One could argue that there is truly a legitimate need for the sex-related domain names, but it is worrying that enterprises and artists feel the need to pre-emptively purchase such domains to stop others from damaging their reputation. It is also possible that even if a celebrity managed to purchase the .porn version of her name, imaginative trolls will find a way to circumvent even your best efforts (taylor-swift.porn anyone?)

But the most worrying development has been the adjudication of the .sucks domain, as I can’t think of any legitimate use for such a string. Vox Populi claims that their domains will act as a “central town square” where consumers can “find their voices and allow companies to find the value in criticism”. They have even put together a laughable video featuring a Martin Luther King Jr speech, and endorsed by none other than Ralph Nader trying to state that .sucks somehow allows people to protest against brands. If that is the case, it will be a very pricey protest. Vox Populi has announced that it will charge trade mark owners $2,499 to register .sucks domain names, and more importantly, some domains will be identified as “premium”, which will be individually priced. I can’t see this as anything other than a company being given a licence to extort payment from every large brand and artist in the world.

Whatever happens, we are in for a bumpy ride. Firstly, there will a period of defensive registrations like the one by Microsoft and Taylor Swift. Then there will be a period of malicious registrations by cybersquatters and trolls. Then there will be a period of objections using the unified dispute resolution procedure (UDRP), where trade mark owners and celebrities will object to the above. Finally, if the .sucks domains are allowed to stand, this could also lead to a number of defamation suits.

In other words, plenty of money to be made by the unscrupulous.

I’m off now to browse the for new GTLDs. Hmm… HarryPotter.world, JamesBond.porn and gameofthrones.rocks are all available!

I like telling stories, and today I bring you a story in space and time, involving knitting, 3D printing, over-blown intellectual property claims, and sharks.

I hope that it will all make sense.

The story begins in 2008 during the reign of David Tennant as the 10th Doctor. An episode entitled “Partners in Crime” was released that year, featuring curious little monsters called the Adipose. As far as Doctor Who monsters are concerned, this was not the scariest, and it has sort of faded from memory. Shortly after the episode aired, a Doctor Who fan that goes by the Internet name of mazzmatazz created her own knitted version of the Adipose, and published the instructions on how to make one online. After a few days of sharing the instructions, the BBC sent her a threatening letter stating that she was using the Doctor Who brand and characters, and that she should remove all designs from her website.

Mazzmatazz contacted some friends, who put her in touch with the Open Rights Group, a UK-based NGO dedicated to digital rights issues. They in turn put her in touch with legal academics and copyright bloggers, and we publicised the threat. Most of the people who looked at the allegations agreed that they were standing on shaky legal ground. Think about it, Mazz didn’t copy the characters, she transformed it by creating her own version of it, and shared her transformative instructions to others, all non-commercially. Needless to say, the Internet tends to respond to such threats as a direct attack, and the story got some traction in the news, after all, Doctor Who fans have a long history of knitting.

Thanks to the pressure that we were able to exert, the BBC dropped the aggressive tone and decided to work together with Mazzmatazz and other knitters. The law in the UK has been moving in interesting directions, and I believe that had the case gone to court, Mazz could have won it. But the best decision was reached for all involved.

I was reminded of this event recently. During this year’s Super Bowl, the half time show featured pop singer Katy Perry. It was brash, loud and colourful, and the middle of the show featured Katy dancing with two blue sharks. The left shark was completely missing the choreography, thus completely stealing the show. The Internet exploded, the hashtag rose to the top of social media, and a new online star was born. Left shark launched a thousand memes.

Following the popularity of left shark, an artist called Fernando Sosa sculpted a small figurine of left shark, scanned it and turned it into a 3D printing model, making it available for sale in the website Shapeways, where people could buy it. Katy Perry’s lawyers promptly sent a threatening letter alleging that Sosa was infringing Perry’s intellectual property, and the file was removed from Shapeways. After legal consultation, Sosa decided to ignore the threat, and you can buy the Left Shark 3D printed figure.

Perry’s lawyers even tried to have the left shark trade marked, but they cancelled the application after it was pointed out to them that they were using the very figurine that they had threatened as a basis for the application.

In my mind both the knitting case and the 3D printing case are similar from a legal perspective, with the exception that Sosa was definitely selling his file. In both cases we have a transformative use of the original that requires considerable skill and labour to pull. The level of originality and creativity on display is astounding, and in both instances I am not sure that the content owners have a legitimate case.

This talk does have a serious point. The Left Shark case is just the opening salvo in a new war between users and content owners in the arena of 3D printing. I don’t think that we have fully explored the potential of this technology, but it is clear that users are going to be able to create their own versions of much-loved characters in ways that may compete with legitimate marketing and merchandising products. Intellectual property owners must be prepared to take into account 3D printing, but I also think that the law on transformative uses is not completely clear.

There is currently a review of the 2001 copyright directive headed by the Pirate Party’s MEP Julia Reda. The report recognises the existence of transformative uses, let me be clear that the proposal won’t change the law, but at least it is a start. I would like for it to eventually lead to something that I call a Fan Art exception to copyright law. It is my belief that smart IP owners gain nothing going after their fans, and on the contrary, they can win by allowing the amazing creativity on display to act as an engagement tool with their fans. Already some companies are quite open about this, allowing fan-made creations to inform their property, and even incorporating fan creativity as an indication of popularity.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has produced an interesting decision regarding copyright levies in the case of Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark (C‑463/12).

Some European countries have established a copyright levy scheme for blank media, this means that whenever there is a sale of a product that can store copies of copyright works, such as blank discs or memory cards, then the manufacturer has to pay a small percentage to collecting societies. The rationale for this system is contained in Art 5(2)(b) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), which allows member states to include an exception to copyright law that permits users to create private copies of works and store them in a personal device, as long as the manufacturer pays to compensate copyright owners.

Copydan Båndkopi is Denmark’s collecting agency for such levies, and they demanded payment from Nokia because smart phones contain internal memory that can be used to store music. Nokia replied that the amount of private copies that can be stored in their phones is negligible, and therefore they owe no compensation.

The Danish court dealing with the case referred several questions to the CJEU, most of which deal with the private copying provision contained in the aforementioned Art. 5(2)(b) of the Copyright Directive. The main point asked is whether this article “precludes national legislation which provides for the payment of fair compensation in respect of multifunctional media, such as mobile telephone memory cards, irrespective of whether the principle function of such media is to make copies for private use.” The court decided here that the point of the copyright levy system is to put in place adequate compensation schemes for copyright owners if a technology can be used for storing private copies, but that such compensation should be proportional to the potential harm caused, and that national authorities should take into consideration the likelihood that the medium will be used to store private copies of works. The ruling says:

“[…] Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 does not preclude national legislation which provides that fair compensation is to be paid in respect of multifunctional media, such as mobile telephone memory cards, irrespective of whether the main function of such media is to make copies for private use, provided that one of the functions of the media, be it merely an ancillary function, enables the operator to use them for that purpose. However, the question whether the function is a main or an ancillary one and the relative importance of the medium’s capacity to make copies are liable to affect the amount of fair compensation payable. In so far as the prejudice to the rightholder may be regarded as minimal, the making available of such a function need not give rise to an obligation to pay fair compensation. “

Moreover, the court was also asked whether a member state could create an exception to the payment of compensation if the prejudice to the rightholder “would be minimal”, and it answered that it would indeed be possible to create such an exception as long as it was clear that the potential damage would be indeed minimal, and that it would be up to the relevant authorities to establish the relevant threshold.

There are other important questions about legal copies and technological protection measures, but the above seems to be the most relevant part of the decision for the argument that I would like to make. I believe that the Copydan case has clearly delineated the question of private copies, and has added some much needed rationality to the application of levies.

The decision has opened again in my mind the potential for the creation of an online copyright levy system. We know that there is rampant copying online, and although we might argue about the level of copyright infringement online, it is still considerable. Wouldn’t it be logical to try to apply the levy system to the Internet, and not just to physical media? As more infringement and private copying goes into streaming, it seems archaic to insist on a compensation scheme that ignores where the technology is headed.

Under my proposal, we would be paying a bit more for broadband, and this extra money would be sent to copyright owners as compensation, making it a more fair system than the one we have in place. This would not stop piracy, but it would at least allow owners a manner to recuperate some remuneration, as opposed to the present situation in which they get nothing.

Unworkable? Probably, but surely we need ideas that go beyond papering over the cracks.

Gather around people, and hear the story I have to tell. This is a story of techno music, street rave parties, guerilla film-making, Internet memes, and one badass hulk of a man.

Yes, this is the story of Technoviking.

During the 2000 edition of the Love Parade in Berlin, protesters created their own political event (adequately called the F*ck Parade) in response to some restrictions imposed by the organisers. During the party, a film-maker named Matthias Fritsch positioned himself at the back of a truck that was playing techno music, and was therefore being followed by a number of revellers, it was a perfect position to get a sense of the ambience. He shot a video of the dancers, and thus managed to immortalise an occurrence that has enthralled millions.

The video shows a woman with a blue wig dancing in front of a small crowd, then a man who is clearly not in full control of his decision-making skills comes into the shot and pushes her. That is when our hero makes his appearance. A man with no shirt, and a beard and haircut that would not be out of place in the set of Vikings. He restrains the attacker, admonishes him, and then starts following the van dancing like the techno deity that he is.

Others dance to the music, the music dances to Technoviking.

A legend is born… but not immediately.

The video stays undiscovered in Mr Fritsch’s own website for almost seven years. In 2006 he decides to upload his videos to YouTube, and from there the video begins to get some traction. Sometime in 2007 it was posted in a porn forum in Latin America, where it made its jump into 4chan. The reception there was fantastic, and it was quickly turned into probably the first Internet meme.

And on the seventh day, Technoviking rested.

The whole point of viral content online is that users will take a popular video and re-use it. It is the fantastically rich creativity what makes the Technoviking meme so enduring. As an artist, Fritsch was happy for people to make use of the original, collecting and curating all of the originality on display. At the same time, he hadn’t made a lot of money out of the endeavour; in 2009 he used Cafepress to print mugs and t-shirts for sale, he licensed the video for a couple of shows, and had earned about €10,000 EUR in YouTube revenue.

This is where the real Technoviking enters the scene once more, just as unexpected as his sudden appearance in the video. It is easy to forget that beyond the meme, Technoviking is a real person, who apparently did not take the sudden fame kindly. Lawyers sent a letter to Fritsch asking for €250,000 EUR and threatening legal action. He did not comply, and in July 2012 he was sued in a civil court in Berlin for violation of image and personality rights, and for breach of privacy. Fritsch asked for the case to be dismissed, but the court sided with Technoviking (ruling in German here).

The court refused to consider the privacy issue, but agreed that there had been a violation of image and personality rights, and decided that Fritsch had to pay €8,000 EUR out of the YouTube earnings, and just over €2,000 EUR from the Cafepress merchandise royalties, as well as the trial and legal costs. Similarly, Fritsch is not allowed to display Technoviking in any video, not even in pixelated form, he must be completely erased digitally.

This is a remarkable decision for many reasons. Firstly, it is quite interesting that the court relies on image rights instead of privacy to attempt to give the affected party some form of redress. Secondly, the injunction only affects Fritsch, so every other version of the meme is not affected by the Berlin ruling. I doubt that the objective of the ruling was to try to erase Technoviking from the Internet, as such an attempt would prove futile. Technoviking lives on.

There is potential for further developments in the case. In 2013 Mr Fritsch started an Indiegogo campaign to fund a documentary narrating the story of Technoviking, but it didn’t meet the goal of €10,000 EUR. The documentary is still going ahead, I’ve had a quick look at about 15 minutes of footage, and it is fascinating. The documentary complies with the injunction and does not show Technoviking, he is completely blacked out, making for a powerful visual metaphor of online censorship. I for one cannot wait to see the full version.

Last Sunday night Citizenfour, the Laura Poitras documentary about Edward Snowden, won the Oscar for best documentary. This is a great development for those of us who believe that the Snowden revelations constitute one of the most important events of our time, and hopefully it will prompt a wider examination of the role of state surveillance in the modern world.

I wanted to write a few lines looking at the documentary from the perspective of Internet Regulation in general. This is more relevant than it may seem at first glance, as in my opinion Snowden has shown us an Internet that is deeply more controlled than we previously thought. This has deep implications for what we expect of our governments, but it also concerns those who analyse how governments, private corporations, and citizens interact online.

One of the most important aspects of the film for me was to understand Snowden’s motivations a bit better. During that crazy period of time in June 2013 when the world was learning about the true scope of the NSA’s and GCHQ’s surveillance programmes, I purposefully tried to ignore Snowden’s motives, as they seemed like a distraction from the content of the reports, but over the years I have started wonderingabout this aspect of the story. What makes a person with a decent life give everything up by becoming a whistle-blower? Was it a miscalculation or just callous disregard for his family and partner? Citizenfour does a very good job of trying to dissect some of the motives, and I was surprised to find that what seems to drive Snowden is a legitimate ideological stance against government surveillance.

Moreover, Snowden’s ideas fall roughly under the cyber-libertarian camp. One of the most telling parts of the movie is this explanation by Snowden of what he thinks of the Internet:

“I remember what the Internet was like before it was being watched. And there has never been anything in the history of man like it. I mean you could have children from one part of the world having an equal discussion, where you know they were sort of granted the same respect for their ideas and conversation, with experts in the field from another part of the world on any topic, anywhere, anytime, all the time. And it was free and unrestrained. And we’ve seen the chilling of that, the cooling of that and the changing of that model towards something which people self police their own views. And they literally make their own jokes on ending up on the list if they donate to a political cause or if they say something in a discussion. And it has become an expectation that we’re being watched.”

This is an incredibly idealized version of the early Internet, and perhaps even a bit naive. It describes an egalitarian liberal fantasy that never really existed where children had the same amount of clout than an expert. True, the early Web was a more free space than what we have now, but I do not buy this mythical in illo tempore where everybody had the same respect. Particularly, the false equivalence of the opinions of a child with those of an expert in the field is rather risible, next time I’m sick I’ll ask the first child I see on the street.

However, what is important is that Snowden very much believes in the ideal free and open Internet, and is not happy with the way in which things are going. Who is to blame? The government of course, as any cyber-libertarian will tell you. Snowden comments during the film:

“So for me it all comes down to State Power against the people’s ability to meaningfully oppose that power. And I’m sitting there everyday, getting paid to design methods to amplify that State Power. And I’m realizing that if, you know, the policy switches, that there are the only things that restrains these states, were changed, there, you couldn’t meaningfully oppose these. I mean, you have to be the most incredibly sophisticated data collector in existence. I’m not sure there’s anybody, no matter how gifted you are, who could oppose all of the offices and all the bright people even all the mediocre people out there with all of their tools and all of their capabilities.”

It then becomes a moral imperative of those who have the technical tools available to them to try to oppose such government control, as it is a direct affront against freedom and democracy. Normal people cannot do it, so it is up to the few system administrators who have exceptional access to what is really going on to lift the lid and allow everyone to see what is taking place.

Cyber-libertarianism may have fallen out of fashion with us cynical academics, but it is still very much alive and well in forums all over the Internet, where there are generations of Cyberspace natives that are tremendously suspicious of any regulatory efforts. Snowden is clearly one of those people, another telling instance in the documentary was that during the days in the Hong Kong hotel he was reading Homeland by Cory Doctorow. This is a book about the protagonist is given files detailing abuses by the department of Homeland Security, and he has to make a decision about whether to do what’s right.

Snowden’s motives and state of mind are very important in Citizenfour, because there is a lot of talk towards the end of the existence of another whistle-blower. One of the themes of the documentary is that it is up to the individual to stand up against abusive government surveillance. This is a level of control that can have nefarious effects on democratic values, and freedom can only survive through the brave actions of people like Snowden.

I, for one, am glad that Snowden had the courage of releasing the files, regardless of his reasons for doing it. We need to know that the distributed ideal of the Internet has been compromised in the name of national security. We need transparency in the way that security services collect data indiscriminately. In short, we need more people like Snowden.

One of Keen’s comments during the interview, and from what I can see an important element of the book, is the fact that the Internet’s architecture favours de-facto monopolies by the existence of the “winner takes all” phenomenon. I was very interested about this, which is something that I have written about in my book Networks, Complexity and Internet Regulation.

The ‘winner takes all’ is actually a concept that arises from network theory, and is related to the Matthew Effect, so-named because it paraphrases a famous passage in the Gospel of Matthew that states roughly that that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In a network, preferential nodes, usually those who were there earlier in the system, will usually gain more links as time goes by, and that capacity for earning more links is proportional to its preferential level in the system. As explained by Perc:

“Because of preferential attachment, a node that acquires more connections than another one will increase its connectivity at a higher rate, and thus an initial difference in the connectivity between two nodes will increase further as the network grows, while the degree of individual nodes will grow proportional with the square root of time. This reasoning relates also to the so-called first-mover advantage, which has been found accountable for the remarkable marketing success of certain ahead-of-time products.”

The ‘winner takes all’ effect takes the accumulation of links in the network to the next level, and a node in the system becomes so dominant that it wins over the competition. This explains why some companies seem to obliterate competitors and become virtual monopolies, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

While I am a firm believer that this is an actual architectural feature of the Web, I cannot help but think that being used in this context fails to recognise that current status may not be indicative of future dominance. Microsoft was the ruler of the browser market, and then it became dislodged by newcomers, who by the way have not managed to dominate the market on their own right.

There are markets where monopolies make more sense, such as search engines, while in others diversity is the norm. I will have to read further to see if evidence is presented, but for now I am unconvinced that the winner takes all effect can be used to criticise the Web.

During this year’s Super Bowl, Katy Perry baffled and endeared millions with an act that included a giant metal tiger, a floating star, and the real stars of the show, two blue dancing sharks. Particularly, the star of the show was the left shark, which fumbled his dance moves and won over the Internets.

The shark that launched a thousand memes, the Internet exploded with left shark worship. Mashups, Twitter accounts, and more animated gifs and Vines than a cat convention. This is what the Internet does best, and not a single letter has been sent to those creators. But now Katy Perry’s lawyers may be showing us that we are about to enter a new era of copyright enforcement, not against memes, but against 3D print models.

Florida-based designer Fernando Sosa has a 3D printing modelling company that specialises in prototypes. He quickly reacted to the left shark craze and created a model for a 3D printed left shark and made it available for sale in his shop (and now has been removed). The model is now freely available on the 3D printer design repository Thingiverse.

This prompted a reaction from Katy Perry’s lawyers, who promptly sent a letter (see bottom of the post) to Mr Sosa asking him to “cease and desist from all further commercial use or exploitation of unauthorized products bearing the IP and copyrighted images”. The letter claims that Katy Perry owns “the intellectual property depicted or embodied in connection with the shark images and costumes portrayed and used in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl 2015 half-time performance.”

This is a brilliant paragraph, I have no idea what they are claiming they own, or exactly which area of IP are they talking about. Are they claiming that they own the costume design? The dance routine? The video depicting the routine? The likeness of the shark?

Even if we accept the contention that the shark is protected by copyright, that does not mean that Perry’s lawyers are correct in pursuing the model maker. Sosa did not take a picture, did not publish the video, did not upload the song, and he did not copy the dance routine. He created a model and then uploaded it to be sold. The legal question then is if the making of a model of a copyright work infringes copyright, and here we are in shaky legal ground.

I am reminded of the famous Doctor Who knitting case, where the BBC sent a cease-and-desist letter to a fan who made available knitting designs to make an Adipose monster (which never made it to court). I am not a US law scholar, but it seems to me that this is a case that might fall under the transformative analysis in fair use doctrine (excellent article about it here). The relevant case seems to be Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc (of 2 Live Crew fame), which defines transformative use as use that not only supersedes the original work, but also that it adds “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message”. Importantly, the commercial nature of the work is mostly irrelevant when it comes to such an analysis. In other words, if the transformative works creates a new expression and new meaning to the original, then it will be considered fair use.

Needless to say, this all depends on whether a court will apply the transformative test as formulated. In my decidedly non-expert opinion, a 3D printed model is enough of a transformation in the expression to call for fair use, the model designer has to go through a considerable amount of work, not to mention skill and labour, to generate a new expression which can be downloaded and printed by others.

We will have to keep an eye on this case. Kitsch dance acts. Sharks. 3D printing. Overblown copyright claims. This story hits the TechnoLlama sweet spot.

The continuing existence of patent troll is a baffling failure of modern regulation. For those not familiar with this mythical figure, it is the bane of the software industry in the United States. If you are new to the term, I highly recommend listening to this amazing podcast from NPR uncovering the phenomenon.

If you don’t have the time to listen, the term patent troll refers to firms that specialise in gaming several unique features of US patent law. Firstly, unlike large parts of the world, the US not only allows for the patentability of computer programmes, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted for many years large numbers of software patents on technology that was both obvious and not novel. Secondly, you can apply for a patent without having to go through the trouble of developing anything yourself because patents protect ideas. Thirdly, the jury culture in the US favour inventors, as there is a pervasive image in the collective psyche that protects the lonely struggling inventor.

This combination produces the perfect environment that creates the perfect breeding ground for patent trolls. The patent troll usually is a shell company that buys software patents and then sits on them until the time is right, and then they extort licence fees from real developers. If the tech company will not pay a fee, then they will sue. The trolls are usually based in districts with a distinct history of pro-patent owner awards, so defendants are more likely to settle out of court to make the nuisance go away.

This is a tax on innovation, as true innovators will be the first on the market, if they did not apply for a patent then it is likely that an unscrupulous “inventor” will have filed some general claims that cover what they are doing.

The latest outrage has been highlighted by EFF, and it is a doozy. Patent troll White Knuckle IP is suing EA for infringement of their patent. Enter US patent 8,529,350, protecting a method and system for increased realism in video games, filed in October 2002. The patent abstract says that the patent covers:

“A system and method for updating parameters of a video game is provided. As events occur in the real world that may influence a game attribute, a parameter is recorded on a server. A video game player may connect to the server and download the parameter. The parameter is stored by the video game and changes an attribute of the video game. Thus, for example, the new performance characteristics of the rising star may be recorded on the server as improved performance parameters. When these parameters are downloaded by the video game player, the video game incorporates the star-like qualities of the rising star.”

In a nutshell, what the “inventors” did was to file a patent application for a method of updating gaming software parameters online. This is not only obvious, but there was a lot of relevant prior art for the update of graphics using real-time parameters that pre-date the filing date, a very quick search produced this, this and this, and I wasn’t even trying hard, and I am sure that expert in the area would be able to find out the lack of an inventive step in this application.

The claims are similarly general, with claims 1 though 17 pretty much trying to reinvent lukewarm water. By 2002 we already had quite a lot of sports games, and you can update and upload new parameters based on the season. The patent is supposed to be an “invention” by claiming something that was already obvious by then.

But what is a true travesty in the issue of patent trolls is that these are firms that exist solely for getting money from the people making the products. The claimant is one White Knuckle IP, based in Utah, while the patent is assigned to White Knuckle Gaming. There is a White Knuckle Games LLC based in Atlanta with a blank website, but it doesn’t seem to be the same firm. In fact, I could not find any online presence for White Knuckle IP, in fact they don’t seem to manufacture or produce anything. In fact, the listed address in the complaint is a residential area.

Software patent defendants know quite well that this is a racket. During a telling Twitter conversation with one of them, it became clear that they hold developers with contempt (“cheap hacks” is how he described programmers). The smart people do not create, do not innovate, do not produce, do not sell anything. The smart inventors file for a patent for something obvious, then sit on it and sue those who give us products and enjoyment, trying to gain from their profits. If innovators did that, we would not have any products. They are parasites taking advantage of a broken patent system.

Thankfully this would not be possible in Europe, I am convinced that a patent such as this one would not be granted. We must stay vigilant and make sure that we do not give patent trolls room to operate.